tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2031981636283426601..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: More on comparing the evidence for Christianity to other religionsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73520388841645607612010-06-27T21:08:16.200-07:002010-06-27T21:08:16.200-07:00VICTOR
I believe in the existence of a being who h...VICTOR<br />I believe in the existence of a being who has the power to raise Jesus from the dead, and who also has the motivation.<br /><br /><br />CARR<br />So no outsider test for Victor, unless we are talking about the Book of Mormon.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64138854257048081592010-06-27T18:05:46.392-07:002010-06-27T18:05:46.392-07:00Victor,
Those aren't my priors. I believe in ...Victor,<br /><br /><i>Those aren't my priors. I believe in the existence of a being who has the power to raise Jesus from the dead, and who also has the motivation.</i><br /><br />I've come upon this sort of response before. It feels like, as skeptics attempt to knock out a leg of the table, Christians eventually admit that the leg would indeed collapse if the table weren't supported by the other three legs. And this is fine, but it can't apply to ALL the legs!<br /><br />So, are you saying that you believe God would spawn someone like Jesus and then resurrect him independently of the lore of Christianity?<br /><br />Of course, it's logically possible for a God to resurrect a person. So, if God would resurrect Jesus, why not Ronald Reagan? Or Mother Theresa? Or Carl Sagan? Or me?<br /><br />Presumably, you'll say that, according to the disciples of Jesus, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and led a perfect life. <br /><br />Now, suppose I claimed that Mother Theresa led a perfect life. Would you believe me? How would you assess the probability that I was right? Are your priors such that a perfect life is not remarkable for people like Mother Theresa?<br /><br />Because it seems to me that you have to put infinite faith in the authors of the NT before you could say that Jesus was the one and only type of person God would resurrect.<br /><br />Generally, it seems to me that even a theist should be skeptical of Christianity. Even if you thought God was likely to resurrect someone, the odds of a person being the one person God would resurrect are one in a billion.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9765070526754241992010-06-26T23:31:24.361-07:002010-06-26T23:31:24.361-07:00VICTOR
Those aren't my priors.
CARR
'Prio...VICTOR<br />Those aren't my priors.<br /><br />CARR<br />'Priors'?<br /><br />Why does Victor believe in a being who has the power to raise Jesus from the dead?<br /><br />Because Jesus rose from the dead?<br /><br />Not even a philosopher would have such a circular argument...Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82693985303789636132010-06-26T13:34:48.138-07:002010-06-26T13:34:48.138-07:00Those aren't my priors. I believe in the exist...Those aren't my priors. I believe in the existence of a being who has the power to raise Jesus from the dead, and who also has the motivation.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15718322691966895932010-06-26T03:56:26.675-07:002010-06-26T03:56:26.675-07:00Victor,
My overall theory is that as you go throu...Victor,<br /><br /><i>My overall theory is that as you go through the alternative scenarios, you start running into problems. I don't think you can get around these problems by just saying, "Well, all those people were just a bunch of irrational religious fanatics" just doesn't wash.</i><br /><br />What does it mean to not "wash"?<br /><br />Remember, an alternative doesn't have to make the story of Christianity seem probable. It just has to make it look more probable than a resurrection, which is at least a billion to one against.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60344385013811800082010-06-25T12:09:21.604-07:002010-06-25T12:09:21.604-07:00It is a Rohrschach test of sorts, in that differen...It is a Rohrschach test of sorts, in that different rational people might come to different conclusions, depending upon antecedent probabilities. <br /><br />My overall theory is that as you go through the alternative scenarios, you start running into problems. I don't think you can get around these problems by just saying, "Well, all those people were just a bunch of irrational religious fanatics" just doesn't wash.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91166453247203229502010-06-25T10:23:18.622-07:002010-06-25T10:23:18.622-07:00For public events, there's a big difference be...For public events, there's a big difference between alternate theories founded upon mere possibility, and alternate theories founded upon information tied to the event and surrounding events. <br /><br />For example, the wrong tomb theory is a possibility. The problem is we have no information or reports of that, nor data tied to surrounding events that enable us to have reason to think it actually happened.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88715239698370546982010-06-25T05:32:36.677-07:002010-06-25T05:32:36.677-07:00It does smack a bit of Dembski's filter, which...It does smack a bit of Dembski's filter, which has well-known flaws. OTOH, Dembski's filter is passive: by virtue of having no explanation of X, that is evidence that it is the product of design (e.g., magnetic field reversal in the earth).<br /><br />Victor is different, in that he says he has an alternative explanation (i.e., that Jesus did actually rise from the dead), and this gains support as he eliminates alternative naturalistic explanations (assuming it has any initial plausibility whatsoever--obviously this depends on your priors--we could say that aliens kidnapped Jesus after all).<br /><br />It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the resurrection details form an intellectual Rorschach test, as they so underdetermine the actual facts of the matter.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-898741587081004372010-06-24T23:20:39.512-07:002010-06-24T23:20:39.512-07:00BDK
...that if giving a naturalistic explanation o...BDK<br />...that if giving a naturalistic explanation of something is harder, then it is more likely that an alternative non-naturalistic explanation is more likely to be true.<br /><br />CARR<br /><br />In other words, the crazier the belief , the more firmly Victor thinks it is true....<br /><br /><br />And if there are independent sources, then it must be true. <br /><br />After all, if 4 Scientologists say something , it must be true.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34090206084285273722010-06-24T21:17:42.196-07:002010-06-24T21:17:42.196-07:00SteveK said..."the differences that give Chri...SteveK said..."the differences that give Christianity an advantage are public events, multiple independent reports, archelogical support, follow through consistent with belief, lack of motive or gain, etc"<br /><br />Blue Devil Knight said..."Steven: the point isn't that something that is harder to explain is more likely to be true. It's that if giving a naturalistic explanation of something is harder, then it is more likely that an alternative non-naturalistic explanation is more likely to be true."<br /><br />1,public events<br /><br />2,multiple independent reports<br /><br />3,archelogical support<br /><br />4,follow through consistent with belief<br /><br />5,lack of motive or gain<br /><br />1,2,3- Most any movements that happen to become extremely engrained in a society, are bound to produce plenty of all 1,2,3 .<br /><br />Today the Taliban for instance.Produces plenty of public events.Multiple independent reports.And any archelogical work will follow up much that had happened.<br /><br />Points 1,2,3 have easy natural explanation in the sense that any movement that takes hold so dramatically, cannot help but leave its mark.<br /><br />Point 4.Even the Taliban follow through consistent with their belief.Its what happens when people have strong overbearing beliefs in things.Kim Jong-il follows through today too,even if most of us see his beliefs are mostly connected to total madness.Does it matter to Kim Jong-il that many other countries place embargo or prohibition against him,does this modern day persecution help in curtailing his faith.Not really,if anything it make both Kim Jong-il and the Taliban push onward,why then would we have reason to expect any less of the Christian movement.<br /><br />Point 5.<br /><br />I fail to see any evidence of a lack of motive or gain with regards to Christian movement.<br /><br />For starters Christian believed in a afterlife with heaven and hell, and that ancient thought has been enough to motivate plenty of people.Dishonesty isnt often thought the biggest crime either, specially if it helps in retaining many faithful in faith,i see no good reason this should be thought any less likely in days of old with ancient Christians.Use of deceit for the purpose of furthering the future faith practices,seems to have often been thought a very forgivible sin.A sin with great honour.<br /><br />Conclusions about gain are held in the eye of the faithful beholder.Members of the Taliban that flew planes through the twin towers,in all honesty gained little more than death, yet surely they must have felt they had much more to gain.Kim Jong-il drags his country further into poverty,yet Kim Jong-il must feel its about some sort of gain.<br /><br />In time to come there may very well even be, more good reasons to see the Kim Jong-il account as being more historically true, than there are for the historical accounts of Christianity.<br /><br />But it will simply have far more to do with "how much" the movement happens to effect us all,how strong the impression mark is it leaves behind it as a legacy.<br /><br />Faithful folks wondering why and trying to understand how the christian movement might have ever managed to prevail against all odds, through times of attack and extensive persecution according to their faith,really need look no further than the modern day Taliban ,a band of a few desert stragglers who sadly still manage to defy the might of many very much stronger forces than themselves.<br /><br />Does this mean God is with the Taliban,no it doesnt.But still you can be sure many followers will believe thats exactly what it means.In much the very same way Christians do.A natural explanation.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73352771589463214022010-06-24T13:52:38.189-07:002010-06-24T13:52:38.189-07:00SteveK: My take is that people get the point, but ...SteveK: My take is that people get the point, but are just attempting to take out the legs of the chair he is standing upon Mormonism and Islam.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22057462804290256492010-06-24T11:19:31.482-07:002010-06-24T11:19:31.482-07:00Vic,
I think your objectors are missing the point....Vic,<br />I think your objectors are missing the point. That point being there are more reasons to accept the Christian account as historically true than there are for the historical accounts of Islam, Mormonism, etc. <br /><br />If a person is going to believe one historical account to be true over the others -- the differences that give Christianity an advantage are public events, multiple independent reports, archelogical support, follow through consistent with belief, lack of motive or gain, etc.<br /><br />By disagreeing, the objectors are saying these are not meaningful reasons to believe one historical account over another - that they don't tip the scales in any particular direction. Nonsense.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3451413626939883192010-06-24T10:57:47.983-07:002010-06-24T10:57:47.983-07:00Hi BDK,
Bingo!Hi BDK,<br /><br />Bingo!Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39009229442655923972010-06-24T10:55:45.572-07:002010-06-24T10:55:45.572-07:00Hi Steven,
Wrong again. If you want to be taken...Hi Steven,<br /><br />Wrong again. If you want to be taken seriously in a debate, it is important that you denonstrate that you understand your opponent's arguments.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5711651732370254832010-06-24T10:55:03.763-07:002010-06-24T10:55:03.763-07:00Bilbo: you are right, though I think people are si...Bilbo: you are right, though I think people are simply chipping away at some of the reasons Victor gave.<br /><br />Steven: the point isn't that something that is harder to explain is more likely to be true. It's that if giving a naturalistic explanation of something is harder, then it is more likely that an alternative non-naturalistic explanation is more likely to be true. This is sort of his tactic with the argument from reason too. In a technical Bayesian sense I think he is probably right, though I frankly haven't worked out the technical Bayesian details.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77128275535792311762010-06-24T10:36:05.443-07:002010-06-24T10:36:05.443-07:00Victor's other argument is that the Book of Mo...Victor's other argument is that the Book of Mormon mentions places like 'Arimathea' which nobody has ever found.<br /><br />(I may have misread....)Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10062799262829357662010-06-24T10:33:30.353-07:002010-06-24T10:33:30.353-07:00I did accurately represent his views.
His views a...I did accurately represent his views.<br /><br />His views are that things which are harder to explain are more likely to be true.<br /><br />Therefore, totally bizarre beliefs are more likely to be true than beliefs where we can see why sane people would come to that belief.<br /><br />And Victor also implies that if a Mormon got details of the US government correct, then we can believe his story about the Golden Plates,especially if Mormons were persecuted for their beliefs.<br /><br />Why did Joseph Smith read the Book of Mormon for comfort, if he knew it was a fraud he had devised himself?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29859068718404288522010-06-24T10:20:42.766-07:002010-06-24T10:20:42.766-07:00Hi Steven,
No, I don't think you accurately r...Hi Steven,<br /><br />No, I don't think you accurately represented Vic's argument. Try again.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88216949356865933122010-06-24T10:12:45.101-07:002010-06-24T10:12:45.101-07:00SO the more bizarre the belief, the more it become...SO the more bizarre the belief, the more it becomes impossible to fathom why any sane person would have had such thoughts, the more firmly Christians claim it is true?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44541589213116682172010-06-24T09:26:35.733-07:002010-06-24T09:26:35.733-07:00I think you guys are missing Victor's point. ...I think you guys are missing Victor's point. He's not trying to argue that Christianity is true. Just that it is more difficult to explain away than Mormonism or Islam.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11668520568580900702010-06-24T08:29:01.835-07:002010-06-24T08:29:01.835-07:00BDK
Victor getting some historical details accurat...BDK<br />Victor getting some historical details accurately is not convincing at all to me.<br /><br />CARR<br />Mormons close to Joseph Smith got historical details of Utah, Missouri, Ohio correct.<br /><br />This is just like 'Luke' getting his geography correct in Acts.<br /><br />Isn't it?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20976896201409468242010-06-24T08:24:10.863-07:002010-06-24T08:24:10.863-07:006) If they were lying about Jesus, they would have...6) If they were lying about Jesus, they would have been called on their bullshit, and their game would have been up.<br /><br />7) The apostles later died while spreading Christianity.<br /><br />CARR<br />I guess Madoff wasn't a fraud.<br /><br />All he had to do was say 'The game was up. It was a fraud', and he would have walked free.<br /><br />Of course, there is no evidence that the apostles were persecuted on the issue of resurrection.<br /><br />In fact there is no evidence that Thomas, or Judas, ever existed.<br /><br />Paul says in Galatians 6 that Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13178081200797499242010-06-24T07:03:45.321-07:002010-06-24T07:03:45.321-07:00The only thing independently verifiable in this st...The only thing independently verifiable in this story is (7). (6) is known to be false because there are thousands of minor cults that believe patently false claims, and their games are not up, even after being called on their bullshit. <br /><br />Everything else comes to us by way of a rehearsed script provided by the apostles themselves.<br /><br />First of all, anyone who thinks the apostles comprise multiple independent sources isn't being academically honest. A group of people who have common ideological goals, and who collude about their experiences are not independent sources. They constitute a single biased source.<br /><br />However, Christians can still ask, "if these guys were not for real, why did they die for their beliefs?"<br /><br />The implicit assumption is (1), that these guys were not the types of people who would martyr themselves. The Christian picture is that average Joes became martyrs primarily because it was a rational response to their actual experience.<br /><br />I don't think that stands up to scrutiny. If you're trying to convince people to follow you, you're not going to present yourself as the kind of person who is subject to religious hysteria or martyrdom fantasies. You want to convince your listeners/readers that you're just like them, and that your listeners would become you if they had the same experiences. I'm not saying that the apostles didn't believe what they were saying (although it's conceivable that their beliefs aren't quite what conventional Christians believe they were). <br /><br />But consider the possibility that their willingness to die and their belief in the Resurrection were essentially independent variables. Consider that, a person with a deep desire to die for a cause, will probably find one. <br /><br />A certain fraction of the population is subject to martyrdom fantasies. Today, in the Middle East, there are many thousands of people for whom martyrdom is a dream. It's part of their culture. Most people would agree that while the religious views of these wannabes are only peripherally involved, and a much bigger factor is culture and conditioning. For example, Tamil Tigers have suicide bombers, and they're not even religious (well, their religion is nationalism). Anyway, suppose that there are several hundred such people in and around Jerusalem in the first century. What fraction of them would be interested in (and susceptible to) religious hysteria? I think it would be the same or higher than it is today because first century Jerusalem was pre-scientific.<br /><br />As I said, you may find this possibility improbable, but it's far more probable than a resurrection.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6046488175393416602010-06-24T07:02:41.951-07:002010-06-24T07:02:41.951-07:00Victor,
In thinking about it, I do think Christia...Victor,<br /><br />In thinking about it, I do think Christianity probably has a more persuasive case than other religions. However, I think you should estimate the reliability of the account in terms of probability. A resurrection is more than a billion to one against. Even if you thought the NT gave you million to one in favor, you would still be three orders of magnitude short.<br /><br />Also, when you say you're looking for a good skeptic's alternative, let's acknowledge that the skeptic's alternative can still be highly improbable (say, 1 in 100, or 1 in 100,000) and still beat the Christian theory.<br /><br />The Christian story is something like this:<br /><br />1) Some average Joes were at work when Jesus walks by.<br /><br />2) They're so impressed with Jesus and his miracles that they follow Jesus around.<br /><br />3) They still harbor doubts about Jesus, and don't get crucified with Jesus.<br /><br />4) The apostles claim the body is missing, and we should take them at their word.<br /><br />5) They witness Jesus physically returned, although he sometimes wasn't recognizable.<br /><br />6) If they were lying about Jesus, they would have been called on their bullshit, and their game would have been up.<br /><br />7) The apostles later died while spreading Christianity.<br /><br />continued...Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67696995206984533542010-06-24T06:10:29.350-07:002010-06-24T06:10:29.350-07:00Victor a few times you have seemed to use the &quo...Victor a few times you have seemed to use the "familiarity counterargument." That is, listing a set of arguments, showing familiarity with them, as if that is supposed to convince us they are wrong. I mean things like:<br /><i>And you find a lot of failed attempts to explain it all away. I mean, what's up with all these swoon theories, and theft theories, and wrong tomb theories, etc. </i><br /><br />What's up with them? They are all plausible stories about how someone could be crucified, and then his tomb was found to be empty a couple of days later. And it is supposed to be a big problem that there are <i>too many</i> ways this could happen other than the one that violates how nature works? <br /><br />Just listing the alternate theories isn't a refutation, it doesn't show they are improbable. It just shows you have heard of them. I don't see the argument here.<br /><br />It seems now that I look because of your posts, there is tons of material on this topic, on all of these theories. More enlightening would be for you to say which of these many stories you find most plausible (being honest), and then proceed to dismantle the best stuff written on that story. E.g., whether the theory that Jesus was merely unconscious, or his body stolen, or people lied, or whatever.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.com